portal_get_network_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool returns status information (freshness, lag, heads, tables) but does not explicitly state it is read-only or requires no authentication. The context implies it is a safe query, but explicit mention of being non-destructive would improve transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (common user asks, first choice for, when-to-use, don't use, examples). It is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains inputs and the nature of outputs (indices freshness, lag, heads, tables). However, it lacks a detailed structure of the response, which would be helpful for an agent processing the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (one parameter 'network' described as 'Network name or alias'), so baseline is 3. The description adds an example ('network': 'base-mainnet') and context ('Is Base caught up?') but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool answers 'is this network caught up?' with indexing freshness, lag, heads, and available tables. It specifies 'FIRST CHOICE FOR: checking indexing head, lag, tables, and capabilities for one network', distinguishing it from siblings like portal_get_head (which likely returns only head block) and portal_list_networks.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'DON'T USE' sections, with examples. It advises using when you want to know if a network is indexed or caught up, and not to use if you only need the latest block or slot number. This helps an agent choose correctly among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.